After many hours of exploring the sites and tools on our project guide and the course website, as well as agonizing over a feasible topic, I have come up with two preliminary ideas. My first idea continues in the direction of my first project, but I would examine the changes in scholarship written on a single work of art, the Apollo Belvedere. This sculpture is unique because it was initially mistaken as a Greek original in the mid 18th century, and approximately a century later reclassified as a Roman copy.
My project will examine the changes in shift in scholarly opinion regarding this sculpture, from its high acclaim as a Greek masterpiece, to its disregard as a Roman copy, and now, the revised interpretation of the artwork. As far as possible tools or sites, I am intrigued by the tools available at DiRT Wiki and Many Eyes. Graphs charting the publications is one possibility,because the discussion of this artwork dropped off significantly in the early 20th century, after it was recognized as a Roman copy. Another idea is to evaluate the change in the types of text conveying positive and negative attitudes about the artwork; Wordle may be a possible tool to create this type of visualization.
My second idea is based on an article by Stephen Dyson, Classics professor at SUNY Buffalo. Dyson discusses the New Age of Archaeology, and he states that the “center of fieldwork tradition, based on the ”big dig,” is dying” due to economic and political issues. I was intrigued by his statement, not certain if it was true or not, because he provides no specific data to support his claim. I began searching for a listing of recent excavation to determine if I could prove or disprove his comment; his article was published in 1993. The International Association of Classical Archaeology created a website in 1998, entitled Fasti Online, and they have an extensive listing of excavations worldwide. I am considering examining one significant site, such as Pompeii and/or Herculaneum, to argue against his statement, as the number of excavations is extensive. The site includes the specific location and the number of seasons of an excavation, and funding source(s). I can envision using the site’s data to create maps and graphs to validate my hypothesis. Well, that is as far as I have gotten at the moment. Feedback or criticism would be greatly appreciated.
Geri, I like both options. But, I am particularly intrigued with the second one. I do have questions for you, though.
Would you have to create all the data for this project? Would that be feasible? And, is there a database of previous digs that have been done to compare to recent data? You would have to be really careful moving forward with that particular project to make sure that you didn’t try to take on too much.
Thanks Sandy and Erin…I have been leaning toward my second topic all weekend. I agree that the amount of available data could be overwhelming, so I began looking through the database to begin the editing process of what is relevant. Another source to gather previous excavations is actual an anthropology grad student in my Pompeii class who has extensive knowledge of excavations (he has done dozens himself with different organizations), and he may know of some databases to access previous digs. (FASTI is limited to the last decade) There are also archaeological periodicals at Fenwick that publish excavation reports, and they cover a broader period of time. Sorry this is going on forever… I am going over ideas in my mind (thinking outloud via via my computer) as I am typing. Thanks again for the questions and suggestions.
Wow.. I like them both too. I agree witih Sandy that the second is very interesting. I always find disproving someone’s grandiose statement very intriguing..
Second idea does indeed sound more interesting. How would you visualize your argument though? What tools would you use to create your maps and graphs? Any other visualization ideas? Just curious.
I am interested in the article itself by Dyson. What does he mean by that quote? Is it that the nature of fieldwork is changing because digs aren’t as large scale or that fieldwork isn’t important at all? I guess I can see it be taken either way. What “big digs” was he referring to earlier? Is he speaking only in reference to the classical tradition? Is he speaking in reference to the number of digs at a site or the size of an excavation itself? Sorry for alll of these questions!!! I’m baffled by his statement…from nearly 20 years ago!!
If you can find an example too of what he would consider a “big dig” then you could have some kind of point of reference on which to base your findings from Pompeii or Herculaneum. I would wager though that Pompeii and Herculaneum might not be considered the norm, so it might not necessarily be a “typical” example which maybe could present some problems with the argument.
I’d go with the second idea, although I think both of them are good. It would make for a good article if you can refute Dyson’s statement.
In Dyson’s article, he is discussing aesthetic theory and classical archaeology, and I agree with many of his points. However, the statement I noted in my blog is not validated by any data, hence the nature of my project. He is speaking directly to fieldwork beginning in the 18th century, leading up to the present day. I was able to locate a journal that is still in publication today that documents excavation from the beginning of classical archaeology; it is in our reading from Cooley and Cooley this week for the Pompeii class. This topic also intrigues me because for a significant portion of this semester I have been reading extensively on the development of classical archaeology for my Directed Readings. The decision to limit my sample is purely in the interest of time, as we have only a few short weeks to complete our projects. I am in the initial data collecting stages, ascertaining what is available and whether my idea will work or not. Dyson’s statement may prove valid, as many funded archaeological projects are conservation based, not excavations. The project will take shape as I am collecting data, and my original idea will evolve with it. I am excited to take on a project dealing with data and statistical analysis (we rarely have this opportunity in our art history research papers). Thanks for the questions. I attached the JSTOR link for the article below…sorry, I meant to do that in my blog post.
http://www.jstor.org.mutex.gmu.edu/stable/505656
I think it sound fabulously interesting; I can’t wait to hear more. Pompeii might be the best option then since it is a continual operation and the data that you’re looking for should be there. I hear you on the time factor! Thanks for the article!